Writ Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Once Statutory Remedies Are Exhausted: Calcutta High Court

"The Petitioner cannot reopen the matter invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction inviting this Court to embark on fact-finding and appreciating evidence where statutory remedies are available", Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a gynaecologist challenging his two-year removal from the register of medical practitioners, holding that once a petitioner has exhausted all statutory remedies under the Bengal Medical Act, 1914 and the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to reopen the matter.

Justice Sugato Majumdar ruled the writ petition not maintainable, reaffirming that a writ court is not an appellate authority empowered to re-appreciate evidence and arrive at a different conclusion from that of statutory authorities.

The singular question before the Court was one of maintainability: whether a writ petition is maintainable before the High Court when the petitioner has already availed of and exhausted the full chain of statutory remedies — the appeal under Section 26 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914 and the remedy before the National Medical Commission under the 2019 Act.

Statutory Remedies Exhausted — Matter Has Attained Finality

The Court's analysis was crisp and decisive. Justice Majumdar noted that the Bengal Medical Act, 1914 is a self-contained statute with its own adjudicatory machinery. Section 25(a)(ii) governs removal of a practitioner's name for infamous professional conduct. Section 26 provides the appeal remedy against such an order. The National Medical Commission Act, 2019 provides a further tier of remedy against orders of State Medical Councils. The petitioner had traversed the entire hierarchy — he appealed before the Appellate Authority under Section 26, lost, and then moved the National Medical Commission. Having done so, the matter had been finally decided through the statutory framework.

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be a Substitute for Statutory Appeals

The Court held unambiguously that a petitioner who has exhausted the statutory remedies available to him cannot subsequently invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court to re-enter the arena and seek a fresh examination of facts and evidence. The petitioner's senior counsel had argued that the enquiry proceedings were perfunctory, the findings of the Medical Council were not based on evidence, and the expert opinion which formed the basis of the Council's findings was neither objective nor rational. The Court declined to engage with these contentions on merits, holding that it was not open to the writ court to embark on fact-finding and re-appreciation of evidence in such circumstances.

"The Writ Court Ought Not to Act as an Appellate Authority"

The Court gave its imprimatur to the respondents' submission that there is no scope to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority in exercise of extraordinary constitutional writ jurisdiction when the matter has already been put to rest through the statutory adjudicatory machinery. "The writ court ought not to act as an appellate authority for re-appreciation of evidence for coming to a different conclusion taken by statutory authorities," the Court held, dismissing the writ petition without costs.

Date of Decision: March 19, 2026